November 04, 2018

Rec Center: $58.3 Million

After the design preference was settled back in July, the costing out of the Rec Center project has been able to proceed with more certainty. As eagle-eyed observer Lorne has noted on that July post, the new numbers going to Council are sizable--more sizable than expected just a couple of years ago. The parameters from the Staff Report are:

The project hard costs include local prevailing wage construction costs based on a design-bid-build procurement process with competitive bidding for all sub-trades of the construction work, general contractor’s job site management costs, general contractor’s insurance and bonding costs, and general contractor’s profit. The project soft costs include allowances for engineering and design fees, construction management, permit fees, inspections, and testing. The project contingency allowance is calculated at 10% of the project hard cost and 5% of the project soft cost, and the escalation allowance is calculated at 5% per annum on the project hard cost estimated to the midpoint of construction. Construction is anticipated to be January 2020 to December 2022.

I'm having trouble copying and pasting the chart from the Staff Report, so here are the totals by line item using the parameters above, i.e. all in with contingencies and escalations and rounded off to the nearest $100K:

Playground, Multi-court, Picnic Area $2.4 million

Building, Associated Sitework, Parking $49.9 million

Furniture, Equipment, Technology $2 million

Everything Else $4 million

-------------

Total $58.3 million

Many thanks to Lorne for spotting this in a timely fashion. We'll have to wait and see if there is any value engineering to be done. In the meantime, here is the financing plan

In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a ¼ cent sales tax measure that will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal- setting session, the City Council discussed the City Manager’s recommended expenditure plan for the Measure I funds, which included an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the issuance of lease revenue bonds. The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018. An additional $1 million annual General Fund transfer was approved in the 2018-19 fiscal year budget, also intended to fund the debt service, to allow for a lease revenue bond issuance of approximately $30 million for the Community Center project.

Just an update: The City Council has been trying to “value engineer” the overall project cost to a max of $50 million. However, during the most recent council discussion on July 1, an additional $2 million of staff-recommended add-ons were approved, bringing the new total estimate to $52 million. Coincidentally, it was announced at the council meeting that a capital campaign committee has been formed to raise $2-$2.5 million in private donations.

Importantly, the above $52 million estimate does not include the interest cost of an eventual $30 million bond issue to partially pay for this project (this is the max capacity the city has to debt finance using $ from the Measure I sales tax and additional contributions from the general fund).

Assuming an average 20 year bond issue (consistent with a previous assumption by the city’s financial advisory firm, PFM) and a 2% interest rate (in-line with current investment grade municipal bond rates), the interest cost could be about $7 million, bringing the total project cost closer to $60 million. Of course, we won’t know what the interest cost will be until bonds are actually issued, as it will depend on the interest rate environment at the time.

Finally, all of the above relates only to the upfront capital cost. I don’t believe I have ever seen estimates of what the ongoing operating costs of the new center will be.

Here’s the most recent project budget that was presented at the July meeting:

With interest rates still at historical lows, isn't now the time to borrow for capital improvements? Isn't that the financially sound approach? Capital improvements ARE expensive, that's why entities borrow and governments bond for them. There's nothing unique about that. Shouldn't our government use this opportunity to undertake those capital projects?

Or, alternatively, should the City simply abandon capital projects, and allow the rec center, City Hall, etc. to continue their deterioration?

Ok, time for a Bruce Dickinson teaching moment! Far more than the interest cost of capital improvements, the City should be a lot smarter with respect to three things:

1. Not overpay for "trophy" buildings that are setting records in terms of the dollar per square foot constructed. Something more modest may be in order for something such as a rec center that is more in line with what is there now (it can look nice but doesn't have to be the next Trump Tower).

2. The City should engage in aggressive capital improvement programs during a recession or downturn. When you do it a peak of an economic cycle you will overpay for materials, labor, architect fees, etc. We're building this Rec center at the peak pricing of all these things. And guess what? Interest rates tend to be even lower during a recession!

3. While bonds are being raised for this and other projects, the debt service comes from the City. Guess what the City also has to service? The underfunded pension and healthcare liabilities of current and retired city workers. This is also real debt, and when you have too much debt and you can't service it, then guess what happens? you go bankrupt! So there is a real limit to how much Burlingame can effectively borrow, especially considering the gross receipts of sales taxes, occupancy taxes, and property taxes are highly levered to the tech/bubble economy. Look how much revenues went down in 2000-2001 and 2008-2009. There was a lot of nail-biting at City Hall at that time!

Folks, it doesn't take a Captain of Industry, like yours truly, to come up with this stuff. Even Captain Obvious should be able to get it, but I fear that some of our city leadership may not have full the grasp and experience of smart decision making and figuring out the right timing to make those decisions!

The Playground/Multi-court line item in the original post is now open per the DJ. I saw the multi-court and it took a bit to figure out. This is why:

And the sports area can accommodate full-court basketball games, three pickleball courts and one court for futsal, which is soccer played on a hard surface. The new picnic area is also open and available for rental, said Glomstad.

Actually, not confusing at all. The way they've done it, works and I for one, am looking forward to playing pickle ball. The corn hole, donated by the Burlingame Park and Rec Foundation is located over by the bocce ball courts. If you haven't seen the new playground, check it out. They did an amazing job. So fun to hear the "screams" of joy coming from the children as you walk by.
Unfortunately, construction costs are skyrocketing in the Bay. Contractors I work with that were quoting $250 to $300 a foot are now doubling that. You can't bulldoze warehouse office space, kicking out all the trades, and replacing it with high rise office and expect costs to stay the same.

If you look at any artificial turf field around, they have multiple color lines on them for the different sports that use. Yes...for me, from a spectator watching a football, soccer or lacrosse game it took some getting used to, BUT, I have never seen a player confuse the lines for their sport.

Knowing Washington Park like the back of my hand, and all of its little nooks and crannies, for me this new play/picnic area and sports court will just take some getting used to after 50 years of just getting some minor facelifts. I think it is great and well put together with the flow of the park. Yes, some of mine and my dog(s) favorite sniffing spots are gone but new ones can always be found.

I just hope that the trend towards artificial turf surfaces for multiple sports doesn't continue west in the park, and the Main field/baseball diamond become a product of this trend. The baseball field is a treasure and a true sanctuary of Burlingame's past and present. That field should be on the Burlingame Historical Site list...
If turf does ever lay upon that field, I hope I am long gone from this world and never have to see it with my own eyes.

Barking dog, it's a first come first one gets the court. But, if someone is playing basketball on half court, the other half could be pickleball. Will be interesting to see if it works. If anyone rents it, Facebook, local non profits, families, then yes, they would get the court and picnic area for the time rented. That's how It worked before and that hasn't changed. It would be cost prohibitive to turf the baseball field and can't see that happening in our lifetime. They've been trying to turf Bayside fields 3 and 4 for more than ten years and the money is just not there.

Turfing Bayside 1,2, 3 and 4 makes sense to me. Especially 3/4. Funny how cant find money to turf 3/4 but can find 50+mil and rising, for an over ambitious, way to big Rec Center without a pool or Gym. But had no problem lending the BSD money to returf Osberg and Franklin after the school district failed to maintain properly and shortened the lifespan of the original turf.

Barking Dog, I have never been a fan of artificial turf and agree that Washington Field is a treasure. It has been the same since the 1920's and is one of the last historic wooden grandstands in the state.

On another note, this old girl plays co-ed softball each week in Sunnyvale at Twin Creeks and artificial turf is rough on the aging body parts. I know that's selfish, but I grateful Reyna and Sauer fields are still real grass!

Hi Holy,
I played ladies softball in Burlingame for 16 years, but we simply did not have the critical mass i.e. enough women to field four teams. Our team, Alana's Cafe would love to be on the field again. Do you know 15 women who play softball?! Thanks for thinking of me!

FYI, it was subsequently confirmed that the approximate $600,000 I estimated for the temporary rec facility is included in (not in addition to) the base total project (construction & labor) cost of $52 million. This brings the total estimated cost (including bond interest, bond issuance and underwriting fees) to $80.8 million, instead of $81.4 million. Still in the range of $81 million, as indicated above.

Can we do a survey and find out how many kids using the park are residents of 94010? Like who is using the park and why and how often as a way to measure our needs. I am sure the Park Mgmt has current stats on park utilization. Why is it 80% plus of park usage is Washington. Can we distribute this overcrowding to other 94010 parks?

From experience with the financial operations at The City of Burlingame, I know as do others, there is no such thing as presenting to the Public a break down of expenditures that justify the cost of the Recreation Center. The same goes for the removal and replacement of The City of Burlingame Corporation Yard located on Rollins Road.

Is this "Recreation Center" really going forward?
Please let the City of Burlingame Elders know how you feel.
Stop ALL FINACIAL FUNDING for the City of Burlingame Rec Center.
Build a Hospital instead.
Oh, wait a moment, 12 "patients and 0ne RN" at Atria have tested positive for Corona-19.
300 feet away from the front door of "Old City of Burlingame Recreation Center."
Bless us all.

How long do you think it will be before the Recreation and Park Dept. Director starts "Working from Home?"

Post a comment

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Name is required to post a comment

Please enter a valid email address

Invalid URL

Please enable JavaScript if you would like to comment on this blog.

About the Voice

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. On it you can read and comment on important city issues.

Note: Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice Blog are those of the poster and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial board of the Burlingame Voice. See Terms of Use

Copyright Notice

The information on this web site is protected by copyright. No portion of this web site may be distributed or reproduced by any means, or in any form, without prior written permission. Contact The Burlingame Voice editors for more information.